Doubt about training intensity zone.

General discussions about getting and staying fit that don't relate directly to your indoor rower

Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby rubin » December 13th, 2010, 7:18 pm

Hi there,

I just started indoor rowing. Now I am confused about how to train properly. My goal is weight controle and cardio. There is some contradiction in the training guidelines. First I read about that to achieve my goal I have to train at 55-65% of max heart rate. (In my case 220-37=183). Therefore my training limits are 55% of 183=100 and upper limit 65%= 119.

But I also read that the aerobic zone is defined by the following definition
50%(max HR-rest HR)+rest HR, which in my case would be 50%(183-61)+61=122

the upperlimit is
70%(max HR-rest HR)+rest HR, which in my case would be 70%(183-61)+61=146

So I am in doubt whether I should train within limits 100-119 or in zone 122-146.

Who is willing to help me out?

Another question I have is about what is more important to get within those limits; stroke rate higher or damper setting higher? (I have to increase stroke rate upto 25/min on damper 6 in order to reach heart rate 130 after half an hour of rowing. Is this alright? )

Your experience and advice is more than welcome.
Thank you in advance

Rubin
the Netherlands
rubin
Paddler
 
Posts: 2
Joined: December 12th, 2010, 6:25 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby Bob S. » December 13th, 2010, 8:24 pm

rubin wrote:First I read about that to achieve my goal I have to train at 55-65% of max heart rate. (In my case 220-37=183). Therefore my training limits are 55% of 183=100 and upper limit 65%= 119.


Rubin,

If you are using the 220-age formula for HR max, you should read this excerpt from the Wikipedia page on heart rate:
Wikipedia wrote:Formula for HRmax
Fox and Haskell formula; widely used.
Various formulas are used to estimate individual Maximum Heart Rates, based on age, but maximum heart rates vary significantly between individuals.[4] Even within a single elite sports team, such as Olympic rowers in their 20s, maximum heart rates can vary from 160 to 220.[4] This variation is as large as a 60 or 90 year age gap by the linear equations given below, and indicates the extreme variation about these average figures.
The most common formula encountered, with no indication of standard deviation, is:
HRmax = 220 − age
This formula has been attributed to various sources, but is widely thought to have been devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell and Dr. Samuel Fox.[4] Inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations.[5] It gained widespread use through being used by Polar Electro in its heart rate monitors,[4] which Dr. Haskell has "laughed about",[4] as it "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training."[4]
While the most common (and easy to remember and calculate), this particular formula is not considered by reputable health and fitness professionals to be a good predictor of HRmax. Despite the widespread publication of this formula, research spanning two decades reveals its large inherent error (Sxy=7–11 b/min). Consequently, the estimation calculated by HRmax=220−age has neither the accuracy nor the scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields.[5]
A 2002 study[5] of 43 different formulae for HRmax (including the one above) concluded the following:
1) No "acceptable" formula currently existed, (they used the term "acceptable" to mean acceptable for both prediction of , and prescription of exercise training HR ranges)
2) The formula deemed least objectionable was:
HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 × age)
This was found to have a standard deviation that, although large (6.4 bpm), was still considered to be acceptable for the use of prescribing exercise training HR ranges.
Other often cited formulae are:
HRmax = 206.3 − (0.711 × age)
(Often attributed to "Londeree and Moeschberger from the University of Missouri")
HRmax = 217 − (0.85 × age)
(Often attributed to "Miller et al. from Indiana University")
HRmax = 208 − (0.7 × age)
(Another "tweak" to the traditional formula is known as the Tanaka method. Based on a study of thousands of individuals, a new formula was devised which is believed to be more accurate).[6]
In 2007, researchers at the Oakland University analysed maximum heart rates of 132 individuals recorded yearly over 25 years, and produced a linear equation very similar to the Tanaka formula—HRmax = 206.9 − (0.67 × age)—and a nonlinear equations—HRmax = 191.5 − (0.007 × age2). The linear equation had a confidence interval of ±5–8 bpm and the nonlinear equation had a tighter range of ±2–5 bpm. Also a third nonlinear equation was produced — HRmax = 163 + (1.16 × age) − (0.018 × age2).[7]
These figures are very much averages, and depend greatly on individual physiology and fitness. For example an endurance runner's rates will typically be lower due to the increased size of the heart required to support the exercise, while a sprinter's rates will be higher due to the improved response time and short duration, etc. may each have predicted heart rates of 180 (= 220−Age), but these two people could have actual Max HR 20 beats apart (e.g. 170–190).
Further, note that individuals of the same age, the same training, in the same sport, on the same team, can have actual Max HR 60 bpm apart (160 to 220):[4] the range is extremely broad, and some say "The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes."[4]
The 2010 research conducted at Northwestern University revised maximum heart rate formula for women. According to Martha Gulati et al. it is:
HRmax = 206 − (0.88 × age)[8][9]
A study from Lund, Sweden gives reference values (obtained during bicycle ergometry) for men
HRmax = 203.7 / (1 + exp(0.033 x (age - 104.3)))[10]
and for women
HRmax = 190.2/(1 + exp (0.0453 * (Age - 107.5)))[11]


So you can see that the 220-age is not a very useful formula. The only real way to find you HR max is by a complete stress test.

Bob S.
Bob S.
Marathon Poster
 
Posts: 5142
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 12:00 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby Bob S. » December 13th, 2010, 8:43 pm

rubin wrote:Hi there,
Another question I have is about what is more important to get within those limits; stroke rate higher or damper setting higher? (I have to increase stroke rate upto 25/min on damper 6 in order to reach heart rate 130 after half an hour of rowing. Is this alright? )


What you need is drag factor, not damper setting:

Understanding Drag Factor:

http://www.concept2.com/us/training/adv ... factor.asp

Another couple of sites are also in order:

Damper Setting & Workout Intensity:

http://www.concept2.com/us/training/bas ... ensity.asp

power output and stroke rate:

http://journal.crossfit.com/2009/07/row ... part-2.tpl


Bob S.
Bob S.
Marathon Poster
 
Posts: 5142
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 12:00 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby jamesg » December 14th, 2010, 1:34 am

Suggest you train at >2 Watts/kg using a BMI of 25 if overweight (i.e. weight = 25 x height^2, with height in metres). Make sure the strokes are long, smooth and relaxed; not too many per minute (as to height, 20-22 are enough if you're tall); keep the damper low, 2-3 will enable long strokes.

If you use HR, use the heart rate range idea. As to max HR, you can use 220-age or 205-½ age, for you there's not much difference. A max HR test is best done once you're fit already.

Half an hour a day will set you up for life, fitnesswise, so long as you pull good solid strokes with plenty of length. This is essential to doing any actual work and so to getting fit. To verify, climb six to ten flights of stairs, slowly, and compare how you feel to your rowing.

Don't expect to be able to control weight however, on just ½h a day. For this, you'd need to do at least 60 minutes with large amounts of sweat, so it may be easier to use the ground floor of the pyramid only - fruit and vegetables - with an occasional visit to the next level.
77y, 188cm, 85kg, MHR 170. 3km/h in water, 10km/h on. Last 2k (1-16) 8.10@26
jamesg
10k Poster
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 3:44 am
Location: Trentino Italy

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby rubin » January 1st, 2011, 3:29 pm

thank you for your posts which helped me a lot.
For now I joined Row2go which is great and it is now easy to have Xeno Muller telling me what to do and have a lot of fun. I can recommend his training vids.
rubin
Paddler
 
Posts: 2
Joined: December 12th, 2010, 6:25 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby rowsleeprow » January 2nd, 2011, 1:54 pm

IMO,

firstly, given proper diet, you could lose weight on 1/2 a day on the erg, but you'd have to be going pretty hard everyday. Weight loss is about calorie deficit, and the harder you go the more you're burning. You can make a 1/2 pretty tough on yourself on the erg..

As for HR's and erging...if you're wearing a heart rate monitor you'll find that the outputs you're getting on the erg are quite different than what you get on a bike or running at the same 'perceived' output level. Erging uses every muscle group, therefore more blood is being pumped throughout your body, and thus with erging you generally train at higher HR's. It is very difficult to keep a HR under 150 on the erg, you have to be pulling pretty light..

My advice: If you're really into HR training that is fine, but don't worry so much about zones while you're on the erg, rather workout to workout variation..If you're sweating pretty good and going for 45 minutes+ you're going to see some results.
rowsleeprow
Paddler
 
Posts: 3
Joined: November 28th, 2010, 11:32 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby wgr » January 4th, 2011, 12:52 am

Rubin,

While you're still in the education phase about heart rate and exercise intensity, you may want to go to:

http://homepage.mac.com/giarnellamd/understandinghea.html

You will find a detailed explanation ofthe points discussed above and answer some of the other questions you may have. It's a bit technical but understandable.
wgr
Paddler
 
Posts: 35
Joined: January 26th, 2010, 8:12 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby they85 » July 11th, 2017, 8:34 am

Sorry to hijack this old thread, but here's a very nice heart rate zone calculator that can come in handy for calculating heart rate zones...
they85
Paddler
 
Posts: 6
Joined: August 5th, 2013, 4:50 am

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby sekitori » July 11th, 2017, 6:55 pm

they85 wrote:Sorry to hijack this old thread, but here's a very nice heart rate zone calculator that can come in handy for calculating heart rate zones...


This calculator is based on the formula that 220 minus age equals one's maximum heart rate and uses percentages of that figure as a basis for a training intensity zones. This is only a very rough approximation which may be fairly accurate for some people but doesn't come even close to applying to others. There is no "one size fits all" formula that does.

The website states that this formula is not 100% accurate. I think a far, far lower percentage is closer to the truth. It goes on to say that, " For more detailed measurement consult a professional". The only way the most detailed measurement of maximum heart rate can be obtained is by taking a medically supervised maximal exertion stress test. That's exhausiting and quite expensive but if you're concerned about accuracy, it's your only real option.
sekitori
1k Poster
 
Posts: 165
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 5:13 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby lindsayh » July 11th, 2017, 9:34 pm

they85 wrote:Sorry to hijack this old thread, but here's a very nice heart rate zone calculator that can come in handy for calculating heart rate zones...


Yep a total waste of time for most - the formula doesn't work.
Lindsay
66yo 91kg
Sydney Australia
Forum Flyer
PBs 1 min 362m ('15), 500m 1:25.4 ('14), 2k 6:46.1 ('15), 5km 18:07.9 ('16) HM @1:59.2 ('16)
lindsayh
10k Poster
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: June 23rd, 2013, 3:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby they85 » July 12th, 2017, 9:57 am

lindsayh wrote:
they85 wrote:Sorry to hijack this old thread, but here's a very nice heart rate zone calculator that can come in handy for calculating heart rate zones...


Yep a total waste of time for most - the formula doesn't work.

I agree, it's not precise, but it is a rough rule of thumb.
There is one pretty accurate way of measuring max hr though. A person should be perfectly healthy for this.
It starts with running for 20 minutes at moderate pace, followed by a 30 seconds of all out sprint uphill. Heart rate should be measured (using a heart rate monitor) directly after the 30 seconds of all out effort. +5 BPM should be added on top of that number. That should be the person's max HR. Based on this number you can then calculate heart rate zones (50% max hr, 60% max hr etc.).
they85
Paddler
 
Posts: 6
Joined: August 5th, 2013, 4:50 am

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby sekitori » July 12th, 2017, 5:28 pm

they85 wrote:There is one pretty accurate way of measuring max hr though. A person should be perfectly healthy for this.
It starts with running for 20 minutes at moderate pace, followed by a 30 seconds of all out sprint uphill. Heart rate should be measured (using a heart rate monitor) directly after the 30 seconds of all out effort. +5 BPM should be added on top of that number. That should be the person's max HR. Based on this number you can then calculate heart rate zones (50% max hr, 60% max hr etc.).


Even though someone feels that they're in perfect health, there is no way of knowing how he or she will react under such extreme stress. Also, it may be difficult for you to reach total exhaustion using this method. You could stop short of it because you feel that you already have reached it when under the proper conditions, you could have gone ever further. It's very easy to stop an activity when you reach a point where you think you may to be close to death. That's called self preservation. If you really want to put yourself through this extremely rigorous routine, don't do it alone. Although it probably is quite safe to do, it's wise to have some around who has a little medical knowledge (including the use of CPR), "just in case". Better and safer yet, get a maxmal stress test monitored by health professionals. It may be quite expensive, but if you want to know your maximum heart rate, the cost will be worth it.

I had this test at one time and it's amazing what levels you can reach when you feel totally exhausted but have a cardiologist and a couple other people yell at you to continue on because you can do even better. Surprisingly, with that kind of motivation, you can. :)
sekitori
1k Poster
 
Posts: 165
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 5:13 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby strider » October 11th, 2017, 4:45 pm

Most studies are limited, and give statistical average results.

Athletes with higher fitness can have higher max heart rates, and higher than average anaerobic thresholds.

That throws off all those calculations. Many people starting out exceed their AT at just 60% of their max heart rate.
For many highly fit athletes AT is not 80%, but can exceed 90% of their true max heart rate. This has been shown in gas exchange studies on exercising athletes and others participating in the studies.
strider
Paddler
 
Posts: 11
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 12:37 pm

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby JerekKruger » October 12th, 2017, 4:30 am

strider wrote:Athletes with higher fitness can have higher max heart rates


Not true. Maximum heart rates are highly individual and there's very little correlation to fitness*. Two individuals of the same age, gender, fitness level, training and even on the same team can have maximum heart rates which differ by as much as 60 beats per minute. Roughly speaking, maximum heart rate indicates very little other than, well, an individual's maximum heart rate.

Resting heart rate on the other hand changes with fitness, with fitter individuals typically having lower values.

*Note I say fitness. This doesn't mean that a higher or lower maximum heart rate isn't favourable for certain sports but, much like height, it's not something that can be changed with training.
Tom, 33 years old, 6'6", 93kg. PBs: 500m in 1:28.0, 2000m in 6:53.3, 5000m in 18:58.2, 6000m in 22:40.1.
JerekKruger
2k Poster
 
Posts: 212
Joined: January 12th, 2017, 6:50 am

Re: Doubt about training intensity zone.

Postby strider » October 13th, 2017, 4:47 am

Bob Spenger's excellent post above is very thorough. Bob also was a bypass surgery recipient. He encouraged my recovery after bypass, since he had done the same thing.

In the first four months after bypass surgery in 2006, age 53, the max heart rate I was capable of was about 100. My blockages were massive: All three cardiac mains were bypassed, to near their bottoms: 99%, 99%, and 80% blockages, with a dozen or so additional blockages all the way down them. But I had extensive collateral capillaries. Before angina hit, I had been doing 45 minute erg workouts regularly.
As I continued with rehab for years, carefully monitored during nearly every single workout, and getting Training Effect information from my heart rate monitor/computer, my max heart rate improved. My cardiologist had said not to exceed 130.

I used my Concept2 again, after my strength was again adequate, and effort on a treadmill had improved to at least 30 minutes. This took about 4 months. Over the next 6 years, my comfortable training heart rate during hard intervals climbed slowly but steadily past 130, past 140, past 150, past 160, past 170. Playing basketball at age 59, wearing my heart rate monitor, my heart rate stayed at 183 for 30 minutes without any discomfort, without tiring. My doctor had said that with blockages as extensive as I had, my heart looked 100 years old. With careful training, I was now able to have a heart rate in the vicinity of a healthy fit 40 year old. Eighty plus beats is a lot of improvement. Especially in someone expected to be already dead (2006 prognosis, death due to heart failure in three years).

With endurance training especially, both the heart, and the muscles used, increase vascularization to get more nutrients and more oxygen to muscles, plus the heart becomes more efficient, and its own exercise endurance improves. This is not my theory, this is accepted medical fact. I had four angiograms in 2006. The first, freaked doctors for two reasons, one, I needed immediate surgery for the massive blockages, since I had about 4% normal blood flow, and two, the collateral capillaries all over my heart are normally NEVER seen. Most often from, in the doctors words, extreme training, almost to the level of Olympic level marathon training (not me). Those capillaries also appear briefly during massive fatal heart attacks, occasionally witnessed by surgical teams. Mine developed over decades as my blockage system grew. In my last angiogram, post bypass surgery by 8 months, the main cardiac arteries had grown new branches from the ends provided flow by the bypasses, reaching out to and joining other bypassed areas to get more oxygen to distant areas of the heart. My ejection fraction also increased from 43% months after bypass surgery, to 63% a few years later.

Max heart rate normally declines with age, as found in over 40 different studies. But with careful training, it can also be pushed back upwards. At age 43, doctors were UNABLE to push my heart rate beyond 175 on a stress test, and I was breathing very hard, working hard. At age 59, playing basketball for 30 minutes with my heart at 183 the entire time was easy. I had been fit before, and was even fitter then. Why only 30 minutes ? Sprained my neck from a hard impact after a young guy drove through me to the basket on a fast break. So I took up volleyball, and rowing on the water again.

I read a lot of research training studies for cardiac rehabilitation and exercise training during my own cardiac rehabilitation, and learned at least one concept I had not seen reported before, which has worked to improve fitness in others I have shared it with.
strider
Paddler
 
Posts: 11
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 12:37 pm


Return to Health & Fitness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest